6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kharkiv.
7.  At about 11 a.m. on 18 July 2005 several police officers in civilian clothes came to the hostel where the applicant lived, and invited him to come with them to their office. The applicant followed the officers, who took him to the Kominternivskyy District police station (hereafter “the police station”).
8.  On arrival the applicant was notified that the police had received complaints from two mothers implicating him in sexual abuse of their minor daughters, and was questioned on this matter.
9.  At about 5 p.m. on the same day the applicant confessed to the offence and signed permission for the police to inspect his home.
10.  At about 6 p.m. seven or eight police officers, including those who had questioned the applicant, took him back to the hostel, examined his room, seized a bed cover, a rug and some of the applicant’s personal belongings, and brought the applicant back to the police station. No documentary record of his arrest was drawn up at that stage.
11.  At about 7 p.m. on 19 July 2005 the applicant, who was still at the police station, had a first meeting with a lawyer, hired for him by his relatives.
12.  At about 8.40 p.m. on the same date the police investigator B. drew up an arrest report, stating that the applicant had been arrested at that hour as a crime suspect on the basis of Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13.  On 22 July 2005 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Kominternivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”), who remanded him in custody for ten days pending gathering of personal information to determine feasibility of his further detention.
14.  On 29 July 2005 the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to abscond.
15.  In September 2005 one of the two mothers who had made the complaint of sexual abuse of their daughters withdrew her complaint against the applicant, stating that it had been lodged under pressure from the police.
16.  The parties did not inform the Court of any outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
17.  During the evening of 18 July 2005 the concierge of the applicant’s hostel and three of his neighbours informed the Kharkiv Human Rights Group (a non-profit organisation), that they had seen the applicant leaving the hostel with the police officers at about 11 a.m. that day. They noted that at that time the applicant had been sober, neatly dressed and in good health. They had also seen him some seven hours later, when the police had brought him back for his room to be searched. They had noticed that the applicant was limping, stooping, and had bruises and swellings on his face, and that his clothes were dirty and wrinkled. Some neighbours also mentioned that the applicant had arrived handcuffed and that the police officers had prevented him from explaining to the neighbours what was going on.
18.  At about 10 p.m. on the same date an unidentified person telephoned the police hotline, demanding an investigation of the applicant’s arrest and detention.
19.  At about 10.30 p.m. on the same date M.K., the Kominternivskyy District Police Deputy Chief Officer, arrived to investigate the complaint received via the hotline, and interviewed the applicant, who complained that he had been ill-treated by the police. The Deputy Chief Officer also questioned the police officers, who stated that the applicant had injured himself.
20.  At about 10 a.m. on 19 July 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert, who certified that the applicant was suffering from minor bodily injuries, including soft tissue swelling, numerous bruises and scratches on various parts of his body, in particular the face and groin area. The expert next concluded that these injuries had been inflicted by blunt objects within the past one to three days, and recorded that according to the applicant these injuries had been inflicted by the police, while according to the police they were self-inflicted.
21.  On 20 July 2005 the applicant, represented by his lawyer, lodged a formal complaint, requesting the Kominternivskyy District Prosecutor (“the District Prosecutor”) to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his unrecorded detention until 8.40 p.m. on 19 July 2005 and his ill-treatment. The applicant maintained that he had been tortured by a number of police officers, including S.B., A.O. and V.M., and noted that he could identify other officers if he saw them. Subsequently the applicant supplemented his initial submissions, additionally complaining that on 18 July 2005 his home had been unlawfully searched.
22.  On 1 August 2005 the District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints.
23.  On 6 August 2005 the applicant was questioned as a witness in connection with those proceedings. He submitted that upon his arrival at the police station, at about noon on 18 July 2005, three officers, S.B., A.O. and V.M., had urged him to confess to the crime of which he was suspected, under threat of torture. As the applicant had insisted that he was innocent, the officers had cleared the desk of all objects, covered it with a blanket and placed him on it with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Then they had painfully twisted his arms, started punching him in various parts of his body and squeezing his genitals. Subsequently three additional officers, whose names had not been communicated to the applicant, had joined them and had taken turns to apply various techniques to cause him pain, beat and strangle him. Unable to withstand the torture, by 5 p.m. on the same date the applicant had confessed to the crime, which he had never committed.
24.  On various dates the prosecutor’s office summoned officers S.B., A.O. and V.M. as witnesses for questioning in connection with the above proceedings. According to the applicant, the first such questioning took place on 9 August 2005. The officers maintained that the applicant had made statements of confession of his own accord and had then become very agitated. He had started banging his head against the desk and the wall, attempted to leave the room without authorisation, and had sustained several injuries when the officers had tried to stop him. In view of this inappropriate conduct the officers had had to handcuff him to calm him down. The accounts by the police officers varied, in particular, as to the sequence of events and their individual roles in the incident.
25.  On 6 September 2005 the applicant complained to the District Prosecutor that the investigation of his complaints was not progressing. He noted, in particular, that the investigator should have summoned the three police officers identified by him as defendants rather than witnesses, and that an arrangement should have been made for him to identify the other officers who had ill-treated him.
26.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant was again questioned as a witness in the above case.
27.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant was accorded the status of an injured party in connection with the above proceedings.
28.  On 13 January 2006 the applicant took part in the reconstruction of the crime scene.
29.  In February 2006 the applicant had confrontations with the police officers implicated by him in the ill-treatment.
30.  On two occasions (3 May 2006 and 15 August 2007) the proceedings were stayed on the ground that the perpetrator of the crime could not be identified. On 10 July 2006 and 19 October 2007 respectively the proceedings were renewed following findings by the supervising prosecutorial authority that further investigative actions could have been taken.
31.  On 26 December 2007 the District Prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings for want of evidence that a crime had been committed.
32.  On 6 February 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision as insufficiently substantiated and remitted the case for further investigation.
33.  On several occasions following this date the proceedings were again stayed (19 March 2008 and 21 May 2009) and renewed (4 June 2008 and 10 August 2009).
34.  On 28 December 2009 the District Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the proceedings. It acknowledged that on 18 July 2005 the applicant had been brought to the police station in connection with a criminal complaint lodged against him. That is, de facto he had been arrested on that date as a crime suspect on the basis of Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nevertheless, the applicant’s arrest had been documented only in the evening of 19 July 2005. Such an administrative delay in regularising the applicant’s arrest could possibly give rise to disciplinary proceedings against the officers responsible for it, but could not qualify as a criminal offence. The District Prosecutor’s Office also found that there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had been tortured. Finally, it noted that the visit of the police to the applicant’s home qualified not as a search, but as an inspection of the crime scene, which had been conducted lawfully, since the applicant had given his consent to such an inspection.
35.  On 7 April 2010 the District Court quashed the above-mentioned decision and remitted the case for additional investigation.
36.  The investigator questioned several witnesses, who stated that they could no longer remember the details of the events of 18-19 July 2005.
37.  On 15 July 2010 the District Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings for want of evidence that a crime had been committed.
38.  On 30 November 2010 the District Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for further investigation.
39.  On 18 May 2011 the proceedings were stayed because the perpetrator of the crime could not be identified.
40.  According to the submissions by the parties, on 21 November 2011 this decision was quashed and the investigation was renewed. The parties did not inform the Court of any further steps in the proceedings.